FOM: standard model, FD work, etcetera
V.Z. Nuri
vznuri at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 31 15:05:28 EDT 2001
hi all. it is true that theory-edge could
be considered higher noise compared
to this list. on the other hand FOM has
a half-dozen dedicated editors/moderators
& lower traffic.
theory-edge is a little more fastmoving
& rambunctious for sure and relies more
on readers hitting "delete" rather than
moderator(s). not for the fainthearted.
let us agree civily at least
for the moment that it is akin to
apples & oranges, grin
to sign up see the home page
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theory-edge/
I write this again because someone asked me
in email how to sign up.
re: JS's msg. I probably wrote the
"confused query" he refers to
asking about the large
cardinal hypothesis related to P=?NP on
theory-edge. its true its all
somewhat new to me; I approached
the field from complexity theory literature &
not logic. I'm a clueless newbie on various
logic theory aspects, not at all embarrassed
to admit that even among those who
are most familiar with it in the world.
I found references to "standard model" in
FOM archives after hearing FD talk about
it. its not clear to me how
"standard model" is formally defined. is
it a set of axioms? how does it relate
to ZFC+AC?
so far I havent found a nice
online survey of the key aspects of logic
theory. I promise to read one when I find one.
those who work in the field, consider having
something like this for "outsiders" if you
want to bring in new recruits. I always have
a bunch of surveys on complexity theory
handy & on the tip of my fingers for anyone
who wants to get into it. imho, its
"professional courtesy".
re: AU's note about the FD los
alamos preprint. (I share the
skepticism about P=?NP being unprovable.)
francisco doria has
a very intuitive style of math that
is well suited for the theory-edge
forum. he's been working out kinks in
his paper & lines of thinking
based on responses from
reviewers.
while I dont think all of it is
fully baked yet, that's what science
is all about imho-- trying to get
half baked ideas into fully baked form.
on theory-edge we celebrate this
process, rather than smirk
at it. imho (from 6 mos of talking
to him almost every week, and much
personal email) FD is at the cutting edge
of world scientific inquiry
into the P=?NP question.
some may wait until they have solid
results before using the LANL archives,
others may dash off some musings. its
great it can be used either way. & how
many great researchers get into a kind
of perfection-paralysis where they dont
want to publish yet because its not perfect?
arguably this happened to einstein in
the latter half of his life, possibly
to the detriment of scientific advancement.
FD surely embodies the opposite extreme!
yes, I'm an admirer; I should
let FD expand on his work further
here if he wants to (it seems very well
suited for this forum in some ways),
I suspect he may pop
in to chat about it when he finds its
caused a little stir, I'll let him know.
he has a really premiere background
imho, "your mileage may vary" <wink>
by the way, "the mathematical experience"
coauthored by reuben hersh is one of my
favorite books on the subject & I object
somewhat to MD's devaluation
of it I found in the archives. but
thats a whole other thread I guess haha
re: continuum hypothesis. well it looks to
me like FD is one of the first to try to
link up results in logic/set theory to
complexity theory. lacking something
definitive, I think there are some
open questions about how they relate, CH
may be one of them. what I suspect is
that just about everything in logic can
be reformulated in complexity theory
terms & this process is just beginning
such as with FD's work.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
More information about the FOM
mailing list